CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ CZECH REPUBLIC BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2023 therefore rejected the application on the basis of this new condition of admissibility, reflecting the principle of de minimis non curat praetor . 1.5 Family law In relation to the Czech Republic, the Court has decided quite a number of family law cases. This is probably due to the fact that no appeal on points of law is admissible in family law cases. The Supreme Court cannot unify the decision-making practice of the general courts in these matters, and more cases are brought before the Constitutional Court and subsequently before the European Court of Human Rights. Last year was no exception in this respect and out of a total of 33 applications, eight, i.e., approximately a quarter, concerned family law. Of particular note are the decisions in which the Court addressed a new issue in relation to the Czech Republic. First of all, let us mention the judgment of Jírová and Others v. Czech Republic . 31 In that case, the Court addressed the question of the right of foster parents to contact with the child, which is not very common in its case-law. In the present case, the third applicant, who had been living in an institution since he was one year old and had had no contact with his biological parents, was placed in the foster care of the first two applicants at the age of six. After seven years, he began to develop psychological problems and bouts of aggression, which turned out to be caused by his foster parents’ upbringing. They did not allow him to leave the flat alone, to socialise independently with his peers, or to have access to a computer. The child was therefore placed in a diagnostic institution by way of interim measure. The foster parents were granted access rights. However, as they continued to act inappropriately towards the child, contact was restricted and eventually prohibited altogether. The Strasbourg Court upheld the decision of the national courts. It found that their decisions were well reasoned, based on sufficient evidence, the courts had heard all the parties repeatedly and based their conclusions on an appropriate assessment of the best interests of the child. The case of Vinškovský v. Czech Republic 32 was also interesting in fact. The application was filed by a so-called “social father” who sought to establish contact with a child of whom he was not the biological father. He had been bringing up a child with the child’s his mother, with whom he lived, for two years, from the child’s age of 2.5 years. However, the couple then separated, and the mother began living with another man. In the present case, the Court acknowledged that Section 927 of the Civil Code allows persons socially close to the child to apply for a determination of the right to contact with the child. The national courts had dealt with the situation in detail, including hearing the child twice. They concluded that, although the child had a certain emotional relationship with the applicant, it was not strong enough to withstand the passage of time. The child was already living with another “social father” and even the biological father could at any time have applied for and been granted contact rights. In this situation, it would be confusing and complicated for the child to have to maintain relationships with three “fathers”. In this case, the Strasbourg Court also found that the Czech courts had taken the matter into account in detail and with care and had correctly assessed and applied the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in their decisions.

31 Application no. 66015/17, judgment of 13 April 2023. 32 Application no. 59252/19, decision of 5 September 2023.

345